Mental mayhem: Mental Mayhem poll on the Hamas debacle

« Syrian opposition moving to Amman! | Main | Jordan's smoking ban: Will it ever take effect? »

May 12, 2006

Mental Mayhem poll on the Hamas debacle

After nearly six months absence, Mental Mayhem's opinion poll is back. The topic this week is the ongoing Hamas debacle. So far the poll's results are in favor of the Jordanian government version of the story. Part of me wants to believe yesterday's airing of the confessions of Hamas members on Jordan's national TV would alter the opinions of skeptics out there. But I think I might be mistaken. A quick sift through the comments posted on different Jordanian blogs here and here and on my own blog seems to prove otherwise. Sadly enough, and for reasons I won't get into now, it seems that there is a segment of society that insists upon doubting anything coming from the Jordanian government -- no matter what; even if it involves their own security.

I wonder if those that continue to deny Jordan was eyed by some Hamas members as a possible military target have forgotten that Jordan was recently attacked. Jordan has been -- and still is -- a target. That's the sad reality we have to grasp. Whether the perpetrators were Alqaeda or Hamas, I believe Jordanians should stand up and condemn these attempts instead of resorting to the old Middle Eastern option: embracing conspiracy theories.

Anyway, arguments about this are endless, so I will leave you with a quote from one of my favorite Jordanian bloggers, Khalaf:

Any self-respecting Jordanian who cared about the welfare of the country should stand up and tell Hamas to keep their hands off of Jordan. Smuggling weapons into the country, monitoring the movements of members of security forces and tourists and planning to commit terror is not a game, and this should not be a subject for political football.

Posted by Natasha at 11:29 AM in Jordan, my nation, MM Vote | Permalink | Email this post

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc76c53ef00d8342f6c5953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Mental Mayhem poll on the Hamas debacle:

Comments

"I believe Jordanians should stand up and condemn these attempts instead of resorting to the favorite Middle Eastern option: embracing conspiracy theories."

So what is the opposite of "conspiracy theorists"? what does one need to do to NOT become a conspiracy theorist? Believe whatever an authoritarian government, with a history of disinformation, says to its repressed people? Then we are smart for accepting anything the unfree press cannot verify?

The only people who always believe the official story in a non-democratic regime are those who benefit from the regime. It's that simple.

Posted by: BoosShoof | May 12, 2006 1:37:17 PM | Email this comment

I would say skepticism is rational but in the interest of finding the truth, providing an opportunity for more facts on the ground to come forth is a wise course. Surely, don't trust everything that the government says. That's not the message here, I don't think. It’s not wise to ever fully trust things processed through a public relations mouthpiece. You gather information from disparate sources and wait for the evidence to mount one way or the other. It's hard not to cry foul. It's like dealing with the little boy that cried wolf. But that one time the reality could prove powerfully true and be important on a personal level. I think leaving the door open for that possibility is important, as conspiracy theories slowly erode the mind of its clarity -- everyone is out to get you. The truth is never black and white, with this case proving that mantra, but where you choose to plant your flag in the information that emerges does convey loyalty.

Posted by: Jeff | May 12, 2006 1:56:26 PM | Email this comment

Jeff,

Most of what you say makes a lot of sense, however, I am not sure what you mean when you say: "where you choose to plant your flag in the information that emerges does convey loyalty."

Let me make something clear; there is no question where my loyalty is: Jordan First. I love my birthplace just as much as any proud Jordanian should. I would not approve of anyone who attempts to mess with Jordan and its security. I want the best for Jordan and all its people. I may not be entirely happy with what the society of Jordan has become (a.k.a. Western wannabes), but that does not mean that I would ever be disloyal to my home.

My beef is with the policies of the current PM and his government and the "camp" they choose to belong to - especially the way they are going about it. Infused with high doses of "nawraneh wa gilet 7aya."

As someone who knows much about Jordan, you should know that the composition of the society and the internal politics are very complicated. One can't simply say that what you choose to believe from this source or that means that it is a reflection of where your loyalty resides.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but questioning the loyalty to Jordan of someone who chooses of to be skeptical of its government and its policies is a lot more than a stretch.

Disapproving of the Jordanian government's policies and actions is not an endorsement of Hamas or any other third party - otherwise the vast majority of Jordanians will be considered disloyal.

Posted by: Scooby | May 12, 2006 3:43:09 PM | Email this comment

Personally, I would feel a lot better with any fewer amount of organized militants in Jordan. Certainly, one could see where tourists and foreign companies could be chief targets.

Any widening of violence, especially in that region, isn't good.

Posted by: Mike McIlvain | May 12, 2006 3:50:17 PM | Email this comment

Natasha,

I voted "Not Sure" even though if you asked me what I think is the most likely answer to your question is I would have to say "Yes", but that's not what you asked, is it?

I think the question in your poll doesn't accurately gauge the person's thoughts on the story that's been going on for a couple of weeks with the Palestinian government. When you ask about "members of Hamas" you're asking about literally tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people, most of whom do not participate in the decision making process.

I believe the question should have been something along the lines of "Do you think the Hamas led Palestinian government sees Jordan as a target for military activity?" The answers should be Yes/No/Not Sure, but with allowing the person to choose more than one answer. This way if somebody really believes it's Yes they would choose only Yes, if they truely believe it's No they would choose No, if they're not sure but think one is more likely than the other they would choose Not Sure and a Yes or a No. If they decide to choose Yes and No then they will not change the balance of the result, if they choose all three they will not change the balance of the results either.

Posted by: Hamzeh N. | May 12, 2006 4:10:38 PM | Email this comment

LOL Hamzeh, as to the answers, why didn't we think of that? :) That'd be a first in polling. I'd have no idea how to create such a thing. But you're right it's a complicated question on a complicated issue. I think enough of the jist of this is up there for you to make your mind up. If you aren't "yes" and you aren't "no," you'd be "not sure."

Scoob, no worries. I meant simply that in the end one's perceptions of complex ideas is influenced by one's loyalty. If you favor one thing or the other, it is difficult when making these types of judgments to dismiss those feelings. It's certainly not a finger pointed in your direction, just a bit of my perception of the reality of “final analysis,” when that jury has heard the evidence and steps out to render their verdict.

Posted by: Jeff | May 12, 2006 4:31:59 PM | Email this comment

BTW I think questioning one's government is one of the cornerstones of democratic ideals. So, no, I wasn't going there.

Posted by: Jeff | May 12, 2006 4:35:33 PM | Email this comment

ما قلتيه اتفق معك كليا,شخصيا لقد عرفت منذ البداية وقبل نشر الادلةوالاعترافات ان البعض لن يصدقها,ببساطة لانهم قررو عدم التصديق منذ البداية,انتي تتكلمين عن عرب تتحكم عواطفهم وارتباطاتهم بقراراتهم ووليس للمنطق والعقل اي وزن في هذه الامور كما هي مع الاوربين كمثال .
وان كنت اتفق معك ان استمرار النقاش سوف يكون عقيم وبيزنطي ,ولكن من وجهة نظري ان ما قلتيه ينقصه شيء واحد ومهم جدا وقد اغفلتيه وهو انه
و ان كان الاستمرار في المناقشة حول نفس النقطة بسبب اخذ البعض قرار بقدم التصديق في كافة الاحوال,فان الاختلاف في الاراء يمكن احتوائه لانه لا يشكل خطر حقيقي علينا,وكل على الجميع سواء ممن يصدقون تورط حماس او ممن لا يصدقون تورطها ,عليهم في كل الاحوال ان يجدوا ارضية صلبة تجمعهم ليقفوا عليها وذلك حتى نحافظ على الهوية الوطنية ,وهذه الارضية هي

Posted by: Hassan | May 12, 2006 5:07:05 PM | Email this comment

Natasha, 30 people voting is a very very small sample for you to ever say 'so far the poll shows'. It doesn't show anything. Its like you are trying to see Baghdad from a sandstorm and you are outside the limits of visibility so far.

So no, the poll shows nothing yet. I guess you need to poll 1,000 to get a statistically good result. That said, your sample should be unbiased, not only literate computer users who can speak English :S

Sorry but this is not the way polling is done.

Posted by: Me | May 12, 2006 5:09:54 PM | Email this comment

بعضنا يصدق وبعضنا يكذب ,وهذا لا يخيفني ولا يمثل خطر على الاردن ,ولكن علينا جميعنا ان نقف على ارضية صلبة ثابتة نتفق عليها جميعنا حتى نحافظ على الوحدة الوطنية ,وهذه الارضيةهي:
ان الاردن وامن الاردن فوق الجميع ,وان من يحاول الاعتداء عليه او يشكل اي خطر فهو عدونا جميعا بلا استثناء وواجبنا ان نقف بوجهه, فان ثبت تورط حماس بشكل لا يكن التشكيك به كاعترافها بذلك,فاننا جميعا سوف نقف بوجهها ونقول ان المتورطين يستحقون المحاكمة او حتى الاعدام او حتى سحب الجنسية منهم كما حصل مع الزرقاوي وعربيات "حكم اعدام+سحب جنسية" ولا تأخنا العواطف.
الخلاصة اننا نتفق ان الاردن فوق الجميع, سائر من يكون .
ملاحظة: اراهن الجميع انه في المستقبل القريب سوف يتأكد تورط حماس ,حتى ان المجنون لا يستطيع الانكار والدفاع عنها,ولا استبعد اعتراف حماس ,وان تورط نفسها اكثر فاكثر ,لاني لا اراهن على ذكاء الحكومة الاردنية ولكن اراهن على غباء حماس السياسي وعنجهيتها,وغذا لناظره لقريب.

Posted by: Hassan | May 12, 2006 5:15:34 PM | Email this comment

"I believe Jordanians should stand up and condemn these attempts instead of resorting to the old Middle Eastern option: embracing conspiracy theories"

Is that done by nodding?

Posted by: Me | May 12, 2006 5:21:46 PM | Email this comment

Hassan:

"الخلاصة اننا نتفق ان الاردن فوق الجميع, سائر من يكون"

fog Amerka kaman? Leish Badran t3ayyan min Condolezza Rice iza il ordon fog il jamee3? Mbayyen inno mish fog Rice, ha?

Posted by: Hamad | May 12, 2006 5:25:22 PM | Email this comment

Me,
Sorry to disappoint you but my humble blog is not CNN.com. I do not see the number of voters on this blog reaching 1000 any time soon. And thank you for inspiring me to put a disclaimer underneath the poll to indicate that it is NOT scientific...! I should do that soon.

Posted by: natasha | May 12, 2006 5:29:32 PM | Email this comment

"The only people who always believe the official story in a non-democratic regime are those who benefit from the regime. It's that simple." This is the wisdom of Booshoof having an easy time to label anyone as a beneficiary of the "non-democratic" regime if expressing support for an official story.

Well, I can tell you smart guy that I am a "beneficiary" of the Jordanian regime since this regime has managed to run the country in a wise way in a turbulant region. We are living in a safe place, where basic human rights are met, freedom is relatively good and we can express our views against the government and we are not subjected to a brutal nationalist or Islamist or leftist dictatorship. Maybe this is why a lot of people do not want peace and stability for this country. For me, I would never trade the Jordanian regime for any other Arab regime including your beloved Hamas. I will strive with all national Jordanians for a better governance, against corruption, for full citizenship, for freedoms of expressions but will never stab our country in the back for the benefit of other regimes. It is that simple.

Posted by: Batir Wardam | May 12, 2006 5:48:42 PM | Email this comment

Actually I'd take issue with such a specific reading of the poll. "Me" you seem to be into the minutiae of the moment here, so perhaps what you quoted: "Natasha, 30 people voting is a very very small sample for you to ever say 'so far the poll shows'" didn't fully register. She says, clearly, that "so far" what the poll shows is such and such. And, as a matter of fact, that is what the poll shows. Will she reach your magic 1,000? Who knows? But to come busting over here and say "you can't say that" while the poll is still open seems ridiculously premature. You cite a number of criteria that must be met for you to take the poll seriously. Don't you think you should add that degrading the scientific nature and conclusion of a poll before it has closed is an unnecessary act of sabotage that serves little but to satiate your own need to argue the results thus far.

Posted by: Jeff | May 12, 2006 6:06:14 PM | Email this comment

Hamzeh,
Good point. Thank you for bringing it up. Well I guess I have indulged into some sort of self censorship. I tried to stay away from using "Hamas-led Palestinian government" mostly to introduce what I thought was a more balanced scenario of rogue members instead of accusing the whole organization. Well I guess I can’t satisfy everyone, there is always someone yelling at me;))

Posted by: natasha | May 12, 2006 6:14:04 PM | Email this comment

Jeff

While I agree with a lot of what you said to Me, I hate to say that this poll has no scientific nature.

The other thing that I want to point out is that there are a lot of people expressing opinions here pro the government or against. Just because one is pro or against doesn't mean he hates or loves the other party.

This leads to the issue of loyalty that was brought up earlier.

I am an Arab-American. Just because I'm pro Arab it doesn't mean I'm against America. And just because I'm pro American it doesn't mean I'm against Arabism. Thats the major problem with Arabs, they always want people to choose one or the other.

This becomes a major issue with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Could a westerner be pro Arab as well as pro Israeli. I say ofcourse. If a person is pro peace, pro justice, pro human rights, pro civilization, then that person is pro both and pro everyone.

Loyalty to one doesn't mean disloyality to the other. We Arabs failed at gaining that battle in the West. Look at Israel they spy on the US and get caught in the act of doing it yet they have managed to convince the US that they are pro American. They bombed a US ship and they convinced the US that they are pro American. All I can say is wow to such genius.

I think if we stop addressing things as black and white, and look at things in a more logical manner we might get somewhere, otherwise we continue to have the shameful image of the smelly ignorant Arab riding his camel in the desert, the image that many westerners have of us.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2006 6:15:24 PM | Email this comment

For this poll to be scientific, the first thing you have to do is determine your target and population and the size of it.

Then you have to decide your confidence interval, for example 95%, this means you want to be 95% sure. Once you've done that you have to determine the size of the sample. The size of the sample determines the margin of error. The larger the sample the smaller the margin of error.

Once the sample size has been determined you have to determine how you choose your sample. Example would be random sampling, e.g. every 9th person would be surveyed.

Once you've done your survey you have to figure out your sample mean and your population mean. The difference between the sample mean and the population mean is your error.

Ofcourse I didn't mention developing the questionnaire which is the foundation of a successful survey

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2006 6:37:55 PM | Email this comment

In re sampling:

I think you all need to lay off poor Natasha. I don't think she intended for this to be a "scientific" survey in the first place. It is her "blogific" survey - like it or leave it.

Posted by: Scooby | May 12, 2006 6:50:54 PM | Email this comment

Another point that I'd like to make that came up earlier.

People keep saying "The Hamas Lead Palestinian Government"

I reject this. I know CNN and world governments and organizations etc... keep saying this.

However, the Palestinian government is not leady by Hamas. It is currently lead by the President of Palestine Mahmood Abbas. He is the highest authority of the Palestinian government. He is the one that would negotiate with Israel. He is the one that has the final say.

Unfortunatly Hamas gained some power within that government, however, I don't think they will last long. Any relegious movement that becomes a political movement will not last long.

I tend to believe that once Hamas fails which will not be very long from now, a serious reform process will take place within Fatah, or maybe a new Palestinian party will emerge.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2006 6:55:10 PM | Email this comment

Natasha: Thank you for the kind words.

I have voted on your survey, but I won't tell you how I voted.

:-)

Posted by: Khalaf | May 13, 2006 1:34:43 AM | Email this comment

Hamid : what i said is" jordan above all",
for any jordanian yea, jordan above "fog" Hamas, and fog Condolezza Rice ,thats what i mean simply, what am saying to for me as a jordanian the basis that i stand is jordan security is more important than any other agenda.
Hamas or anyothers agenda.
thats the basis we should stand as i think.
am not interested to defend about the gov,and i will not aske that,casue simply am againest it,but am asking that all jordanians should defend about jordan, dont you agree with me?!

TO Natasha:
am not talking about the poll ,am saying
we different on the way we think about the solution , i think that if jordanians are diff on believing the story" that is acceptable", but there is other things not acceptable to be diff about it, which is that we dont diff about jordan, and i mean jordan "the country", not jordan the gov.
dont you agree?

Posted by: Hassan | May 13, 2006 3:08:52 AM | Email this comment

"but will never stab our country in the back for the benefit of other regimes. It is that simple."

THINK!!! WHAT MOTIVE DOES HAMAS HAS IN TARGETING JORDAN? WHY DID THEY NOT DO IT BEFORE THEY BECAME IN A POSITION OF POWER AND UNDER GREAT SCRUTINY? WHY ONLY WHEN THE US DECIDED TO UNDERMINE HAMAS DID THESE ALLEGATIONS SURFACE?

Here in Jordan, we don't have access to facts, and in the absence of a credible source of information, i only have my common sense and the credibility of each player in this incident. I know Hamas , right or wrong, are blunt, brazen, but truthful. They are a democratic government and they have risked a great deal because they stand by their word. The other player, our authoritarian regime, has a history of locking journalists up, shutting up oppositions, manipulating the truth, and deceiving their own people. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO GO WITH, MY JUDGMENT.

Had our government been democratic, and had our press been free. I would not have doubted the official story. It's that simple.

Posted by: BoosShoof | May 13, 2006 3:56:55 AM | Email this comment

"this regime has managed to run the country in a wise way in a turbulant region."

And you call the death of so many innocent jordanians in the recent terror attacks wise? when our regime takes sides in the Iraqi conflict and by torturing iraqis in Jordan, we, the average vulnrable Jordanians who don't have armored cars guarding our homes, paid the price in blood for the mistakes of a regime that so long as it feels safe that it could care less for the rest of us.

With all due respect, easy for you to say that Natasha when you are living in the safety of the US. I still have to attend family weddings at local hotels. And everytime I hear of the regime taking sides in more conflicts, to align itself with the US, I sweat more when I walk the streets of Amman. I have no say in the regimes decisions but I or somsone I know will again pay the price. That's very unwise.

Posted by: BoosShoof | May 13, 2006 4:13:42 AM | Email this comment

Jeff: "is an unnecessary act of sabotage"

Dont you think your classification of my criticism of Natasha's polling method is slightly ridiculous? After all, if anyone is sabotaging (or meddling) the polling it is Natasha herself by cheering one side before the final result is made. Recall that announcing pre-mature results affects the way latter voter chose.

...just to bring your attention how you, yourelf, "seem to be into the minutiae of the moment here"

Posted by: Me | May 13, 2006 8:48:30 AM | Email this comment